Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Next
Comments 10451 to 10500:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:43 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
More on the comparison of MIS 11 to present here:
-
TVC15 at 08:36 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
@ 94. Electric
I don't enjoy challenging this particular denier as he will come back hurling insults just as you can see in the condescending attitude displayed in my post. He also plays as if he's some sort of science genius. Sadly most Americans fall for such disingenuous displays due to many here not holding basic science literacy.
Instead of challenging him, I simply post evidence to refute his denier statements.
@ 95,96 Philippe Chantreau
Yes the "No severe weather" comment is baffeling indeed.
Thank you for the response and the link.
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 30 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Regarding the great interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg. The considerable power of lobby groups and the lack of limits on campaign donations in America is because the constitution protects free speech and the courts have interpreted this to mean that there should be no limits on lobby groups and what people can donate to political parties. Refer this article. Changing the constitution is not easy.
It looks from various polls like the left mostly accept the science of climate change and want something done at both individual and government level, and the right largely still reject the overwhelming consensus on climate science, and see this issue as a socialist conspiracy to entrap them and attack their wealth and privilege, just for the sake of it, and to manipulate people like Greta. Unless this thinking of the right changes, we have a stalemate situation and probable environmental disaster of epic proportions. Yes all people and political parties need to find common ground, but the right have to shed some delusions.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:17 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
The "please do tell" condescending tone is quite typical. The selection of research that they think support their position but turns out somewhat different if you actually look into it, even more so. There is a pretty good literature on MIS 11, and the paper I linked below has a great bibiliography with links. It's not nearly as simple as your denier would have you believe.
MIS 11 is interesting for a number of reasons. Astronomical forcings were quite similar to those of the present; however, the interglacial lasted a long time and saw the collapse of the Southern Greenland ice sheet. The regime of galcial/interglacials definitely changed afterward and the cycles that have dominated until our interglacial are different. There is strong support for the trigger/feedback idea put forth by Hansen in the literature on the subject of glacial/interglacial.
Kleinen et al (2014) has produced successful reconstitutions of MIS11 using intermediate complexity and general circulation models. The high sea levels are owed to the loss of the ice sheet, and that is not at all an automatic feature; however, there were some possible large regional variations. They also mention the existence of quite variable climate regimes over short periods of time.
From their discussion section: "numerous colder oscillations (up to 2 °C below the present) appear in the reconstruction, suggesting some climate instability during this long interglacial interval."
Furthermore, some regions experienced only mildly different climate than modern pre-industrial, even though they were located in the Northern hemisphere (where the astronomical forcing was acting). They cite la Cote, in the Western French Alps: "Coleoptera- and pollen-based climate reconstructions suggest conditions similar to present or even slightly warmer during the interglacial optimum, up to 18 °C in July compared to the modern value of 16.4 °C. However, pollen-derived mean January temperatures did not exceed the modern value (−0.7 °C) by more than ca. 1 °C, with the exception of one pollen spectrum (Field et al., 2000)."
This leads to a much more nuanced interpretation. There is evidence that MIS11 is a good fit for modern time comparisons as they pertain to astronomical configuration. However, The fact that temperatures were slowly going down for thousands of years before modern times points to a marked difference between MIS 11 and present.
Kleinen et al:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213009622
-
nigelj at 07:25 AM on 30 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
In all these well intended discussions about global warming and animial agriculture you have to look at what people are most likely to do. There is no point living in a fantasy land of expecations.I can see people reducing meat consumption for a variety of well known reasons, and I hope we all do this, but its really hard to see the whole world becoming vegan or something reasonably close to this, even if there was some theoretical case in favour of it. Humans are omnivores by nature, something we should always remember. People like eating meat and its a good source of energy.
This being the case we should do all farming including cattle farming in environmentally sustainable ways and that sequesters soil carbon. Not sure that I go along fully with Red Barons big claims and I have to be true to my own reading of the evidence, but there is still some significant potential there to sequester soil carbon and regenerative agriculture makes a good case for itself in terms of general environmentalism with soil carbon as a side benefit. We should use all the tools we have when they make sense like this.
-
RedBaron at 06:18 AM on 30 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
@9 Swampfoxh,
Animal agriculture is about 5% of global emissions, but it could potetially sequester all emissions from all agriculture, if changes were made in the methods used.
“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory
The way the majority of animal husbandry is done today is indeed a net emissions source. So sure boycott it now. That's fine. But please don't stand in the way of people attempting to change the methods by which we do agriculture. It's counter-productive. Regenerative agriculture is the only proven technology with the potential to be a large enough to reverse AGW. And regenerative agriculture needs animals used properly to complete many key ecosystem functions we lost when we killed off all the wild animals.
“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard
Without those key ecosystem services, nothing we do will have any chances at all of reversing global warming. Yes we still need to reduce fossil fuel emissions. But alone the evidence shows it will not be enough. This is what we are locked into unless we drawdown massive quantities of legacy carbon into the soil and lock it in there for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Climate urgency: we've locked in more global warming than people realize
Arctic now locked into devastating temperature rise, UN report says
Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years
There is only one. I repeat only one technology we have today that is capable of sequestering that quantity of legacy carbon at a fast enough rate to "unlock" global warming, and that is regenerative agriculture.
Can we reverse global warming?
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change.
'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison
-
swampfoxh at 05:11 AM on 30 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
"The Race Is On" didn't speak a word about Animal Agriculture, or did I miss that somewhere?
-
swampfoxh at 05:09 AM on 30 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Eliminating Animal Agriculture from the planet would buy a lot of time since its contribution to the climate problem is so large. We can do without animal agriculture much easier than we can do without fossil fuels, although the elimination of both, with large population reductions, could put us back on track to a survivable future.
-
campcarl at 02:52 AM on 30 June 2019New Research for week #25, 2019
Thanks to this service, I discovered a new study that has profound significance in the palaeo category, having full access but not one iota of publicity when searched. Can someone give it a good review?
"Evidence for fire in the Pliocene Arctic in response to amplified temperature"
-
MA Rodger at 02:06 AM on 30 June 2019Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Duke @31,
You mention "4+ billion years" and for much of that time the Earth's climate is little understood. So perhaps a few words about climate prior to the ice-age/interglacial cycles of the last 3 million years.
The speculation for the very early ages is that there had to be a very strong greenhouse effect because the Sun was much fainter and there had to be liquid water for life to evolve. So that is all very tenuous stuff.
It is perhaps the last 500 million years that the geological record remains complete enough to have a good stab at global climate. I say "stab" as, for instance, the gaphic below taken from Wikipedia only provides a relative δ18O record. (A long-term trend has to be subtracted from the data. Here an imprecise method is used and that means δ18O levels (temperature) more than 100 million year apart start to become difficult to directly compare.) So the wobbles are there but the relative maxs & mins should not be compared.
Research suggests causes for the various wobbles. For instance, the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation (450My bp) is seen as resulting from the erosion of large fields of volcanic rock that proved particularly good at sucking CO2 from the atmosphere. By modern standards, CO2 levels were still sky-high but the Sun was much weaker, requiring something like 4,000ppm CO2 to give a modern global temperature.
But note such wobbles were very slow compared with today's AGW, these ones being measured in millions of years. Others measure in tens-of-thousands of years, as do the recent ices-age/interglacial transitions.
And none of this research would make any sense whatever without CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the present human-caused rise being a serious climate-changer.
-
Eclectic at 18:43 PM on 29 June 2019Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Duke @31 ,
first go back to basics. The major factors determining the Earth's climate are :-
1. The insolation: level of shortwave energy coming from the sun.
2. The level of Greenhouse Gasses ~ most significantly, CO2.
3. The level of aerosol particles reflecting sunlight.
During the past almost 1 million years, the "Milankovitch cycle" of slight Earth axial & orbital changes has initiated/triggered a half-irregular series of glaciations & (briefer) de-glaciations. Currently we are on a gradual downward path of cooling (of about 5,000 years' duration) . . . and with more cooling still to come for 20 or so millennia. Or at least, that was the path, until recent events of the past 2 centuries. (Please note that the so-called Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have been fairly minimal wiggles on that long-term cooling background.)
However, against this background pattern of cooling, there has been an extraordinary (and continuing) upward spike of global temperature during the past 100 - 200 years. What has caused this remarkable change? #The analogy might be: a small-town police chief is used to seeing 3 - 6 house burglaries per year . . . but now he has just had 80 burglaries on one weekend ~ so, obviously, there's been a drastic change of some sort, and he has to figure out what has caused the extraordinary change.
For the scientists, they have to figure whether the rapid/huge temp spike ( currently about half a degreeC above the warmest level of the Holocene's previous 10,000 years ) has been caused by changes in insolation and/or GHGasses and/or aerosols. ( Other causes: cosmic rays, cloud changes, etcetera, have been checked out . . . and are clearly not a contributing factor in the climate change. )
Duke, you probably know most of that. And the evidence points to a single "culprit" for the spike. #Though I'm not sure what you mean by "dooming" ~ after all, the present & future consequences of global warming are 95% bad and 5% good (which is kind of okay for those in the 5% category!)
-
Duke at 15:38 PM on 29 June 2019Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
As has been stated above, I truly appreciate the respectful tone with which the commenters have been making their arguments and asking questions. It’s a refreshing change to be able to sort through information without being hit over the head with politics.
I have a lingering question that I hope someone can address or provide a theory about. Since the earth has been in many states over its 4+ billion years of existence - having had several ice ages and heat waves that thawed the landscape and made life possible - how does one account for/explain the other major climate shifts, given there were no humans around to make an impact? How can we be so certain that our actions alone are dooming is, rather than it just being another temperature or climate change cycle of our very active planet?
This is a serious question that has always plagued me when discussing this issue. I hope to get some feedback from this well-informed group.
Thank you in advance-
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:02 PM on 29 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
No severe weather? So what has been experienced by US Midwest farmers this year does not count? Houston getting 500 years rain events 3 years in a row doesn't either? France recording its highest temperatures since record keeping began, yesterday, and then again today, on the heels of last year's severe thunderstorm activity? The successive Australian heat waves and associated fires? Last summer global heat wave spanning from Canada to Japan, with fires across the polar circle in Scandinavia? The hyperfast intensification of hurrican Michael? Last Austral summer with the highest recorded temperatures in Southern Chile? What rock do these people live under?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:15 PM on 29 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
And that's without even trying hard...
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:15 PM on 29 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
True that
Some good news, however.
-
Eclectic at 12:33 PM on 29 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Philippe Chantreau @5 ,
yes, it is all a matter of attitude.
A golden cartoon from 1970-ish ( Punch magazine ) shows two plump middle-aged businessmen (cigars & Homburgs) in the back seat of a Rolls-Royce driving through central London. One says to the other: "Yes, I am grossly over-remunerated . . . but I am not grossly over-remunerated enough."
-
Eclectic at 12:22 PM on 29 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
TVC15 @93 ,
I would say that your denier friend believes in magic, not science. In the current situation (the Holocene) the world has been slowly cooling for around 5,000 years, and the sea level has been falling slowly . . . until the past 150 years of rapid warming, of course. Lower temperature, more land ice, lower sea level. Higher temperature, less land ice, higher sea level. Does he have any scientific evidence to counter those basic physics? . . . no, of course he doesn't. Challenge him !
-
TVC15 at 07:57 AM on 29 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
A denier stated this:
So, how many dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed scientific papers will it take to convince of the Truth, which is that sea levels always rise 3 meters to 14 meters?
Please, do tell. Why do you reject science?
At those times, CO2 levels were 260 ppm - 280 ppm CO2.
Whether CO2 levels are 260 ppm or 460 ppm, your sea levels are going to rise 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can do to stop it.
So, get over it already.
And, severe weather?
Not gonna happen. They've been making those claims for decades and list of failures is long. That's because there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support claims of severe weather. It's all fear-mongering to mislead people.
This denier used these links to try and support their denier claims.MIS-11 duration key to disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet
Greenland ice cores reveal warm climate of the past
Do sea levels always rise 3 to 14 meters regardless of the amount of CO2 levels? -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 29 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Salience at #2,
Wars are objectionable on numerous grounds, and it is likely true that the total money spent on the Iraq war could have financed a global energy transition. However, the problem is even deeper.
There is enough money now that can be freed up to accomplish that transition, without even imposing beyond a moderate burden on anyone. The problem comes from the priorities and mindset of those who hold power. The 2008 financial crisis cost somehwere around 15 trillion to the World economy; likely enough, once again, to perform an energy transition. At any given time, the rich and ultra-rich have something like 7.6 trillion stashed away in tax havens, hidden for the exclusive purpose of not having to give up a portion of it.
That behavior comes from people who have no material worries whatsoever. If I had a bad cancer diagnosis, despite living in the most privileged part of the world, obtaining and undergoing the treatment would drain all my resources, require me to sell my house and possibly use my retirement savings, even though I have a good profession, savings, and a credit rating in the mid-800s. The rich and ultra-rich would experience none of that. They would only have to endure the distress of the disease and treatment.
Despite the fact that their position is privileged to this historically unprecedented extent, they are utterly convinced that they must not have even a litle less money than the theoretical maximum they can possibly extract from this world. That's the real problem. Of course, some of them enagage in philanthropy, but even they would not be ready to a profound change that would render it impossible in the first place to obtain wealth expressed in a high power of 10 of that of the lowest paid employee in their empire. Historically, they all have pushed very hard to outsource all activity to places where they did not have to play a fair role in the game, paying people miserable wages, having little to no tax liabilities, no environmental or social responsibility and generous lattitude to obtain favor from local officials. Philanthropy seems kinda cheap after that goal is realized.
The technologies exist for accomplishing at least a partial energy transition that could dramatically reduce emissions at the 15 years horizon. It is not happening because governments are at the back and call of people for whom short term profits are more important than anything.
-
cpske at 01:41 AM on 29 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Welcome, James Dyke. Climate scientists have certainly sounded the alarm for mankind. Your film will only help. So, thank you for this.
But, did you realize that climate scientists do a disservice to the cause when they keep telling politicians there still is a 'pathway' to 1.6C (or whatever)? First, all they hear is they can keep burning fossil fuels, and second, you have stepped outside your expertise and into the political space.
With your estimates, if you factor in the time for politicians and the global economy to change we are OUT OF TIME NOW (reduce fossil fuels to zero in the next ten years).
-
ContextPro at 23:15 PM on 28 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
I think that perhaps more than education, documentaries to combat misinformation that teach topics like:
- political/economic biases & propaganda
- free market fantasies that underlie them
- fact-checking
- basic logic, recognition of fallacies & categorization
Websites exist to counter deniers claims, but after using them most days for over a year now, there don't seem to be any that are both complete and very importantly: convenient enough to understand and counter fossil fuel propaganda and denier ideologies...and insults! :)
I would be very interested in working on such a project, if others were interested. -
Salience17308 at 22:59 PM on 28 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Considering that WAR is the #1 guilty party in climate degradation,
"The money misspent on the Iraq War—a war for oil let's not forget— could have purchased the planetary conversion to renewable energy... The Pentagon uses more petroleum per day than the aggregate consumption of 175 countries (out of 210 in the world), and generates more than 70 percent of this nation's total greenhouse gas emissions, based on rankings in the CIA World Factbook. LINK
And considering that the #1 perpetrator of war on the planet is the USA, we may quite logically conclude that to avoid total climate meltdown and probable extinction of most life forms, the ability of the USA to continue its Masters of War strategy must be rapidly and radically reduced, i.e., eliminated. Warfare must be our first target, for all other measures to ensure continued survival, even taken together, if warfare continues, will not meet with overall success.
And considering that those who now wield military power in the USA have not the least intention of reducing war at all, much less radically and rapidly, it is therefore imperative that a newly invigorated, well-financed, anti-war movement be a primary project for all biophiles, those who love life. So where is the anti-war, peace movement today? Submerged in protests for a dozen comparatively unimportant issues, I fear. LINKAn excerpt from my book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KSDSF72?ref_=pe_3052080_276849420
Moderator Response:[DB] "The Pentagon uses more petroleum per day than the aggregate consumption of 175 countries (out of 210 in the world), and generates more than 70 percent of this nation's total greenhouse gas emissions"
As others have noted, this doesn't pass the sniff test. While the US Military is the US Government's biggest emitter, if the US military were a country, it would only be about the 55th-biggest emitter.
Shortened and activated URLs. Self-promotion link to your book snipped.
-
nigelj at 13:11 PM on 28 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
During the 1970's there was also a scare about a possible impending ice age or cold period, as temperatures had fallen a bit, although this was only a view among a minority of scientists. In the original research Svante Arrhenius envisaged deliberately burning fossil fuels to stop an ice age.
The point being perhaps as industry knowledge of global warming increased in the 1970's 1) the full implications were not apparent and 2) it was brushed off as a useful way of preventing an ice age. Eventually the problems of global warming sunk in and recent research indicates 1.5 degrees of warming is quite enough to stop the next ice age. It's a silly idea anyway because even if we could prevent the next ice age, its unlikely we could do anything about the one after that and so on. The current warming issue is the real problem, and we can do something about it.
-
donfit at 12:20 PM on 28 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
In approximately 1972-73 I attended a seminar at St. Louis University presented by their Physics Department. I was working for an HVAC manufacturer and was mainly interested in ideas to help model and forecast what type of furnaces we would need by fuel source, oil, natural gas, or electric. It was well understood at that time that burning fossil fuels increased earth's temperature. The extent and the possible ramifications would come later. Of course, this was pre Chernobyl (and Three Mile Island) so the recognized alternative to meet growing energy needs was predicted to be nuclear, with a strong preference for solar if storage solutions could be developed.
-
David Kirtley at 09:52 AM on 28 June 2019If growth of CO2 concentration causes only logarithmic temperature increase - why worry?
Further to scaddenp's comment...the science behind the log relationship between CO2 concentration and rediative forcing can be found in Myhre et al 1998. There must be earlier papers on this but I'm not sure what they are...the refs in that paper would probably help with that.
Here are a few more helpful links:
Science of Doom: CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas - Part Seven
RealClimate: The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps and Part II of A Saturated Gassy Argument: What Angstrom didn't Know.
-
scaddenp at 09:32 AM on 28 June 2019CO2 effect is logarithmic
Useful paper here.
-
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 28 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234, I have tried to address your question on CO2 logarithmic relation here. Such questions are offtopic here.
-
scaddenp at 07:50 AM on 28 June 2019If growth of CO2 concentration causes only logarithmic temperature increase - why worry?
Answering from here. This seems a better place for comment. See also article here. First, lets be clear about what is logarithmic. Doubling the concentration of CO2 from pre-industrial will increase the surface irradiation by ~4W/m2. To get another 4W/m2 of irradition, then you would have increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 to over 800ppm.
Note that is the relation between CO2 concentration and increased surface irradiation that is logarithmic - not the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Confusion of this results in a lot of strawman-arguments.
The relationship between CO2 and temperarure is much more complicated because of the various feedbacks that cut in. By itself, doubling CO2 would only raise temperature 1.1C but you cannot raise temperature without increasing the water vapour (a powerful greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere and melting ice (reducing albedo). Feedbacks work at very different timescales. Over a scale of hundreds to millenia, rising temperatures will cut in natural CO2 feedbacks (warm oceans cant hold as much dissolved CO2 and melting permafrost and clathrates release CO2 and methane). This is problem of climate sensitivity and it remains a tough problem to nail down.
Why the log dependence of irradiation on concentration. Short answer is that falls out of radiative transfer equations. For longer answer, try this paper.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 28 June 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Advocacy by climate scientists on the climate issue sounds great to me, whether in interviews with scientists, books or movies. Especially if we get to hear little bit of their own take on the issues and their worries about the future, as well as the facts and figures, because this will really connect with people by personalising it.
People don't trust media journalists reporting on the science and will trust scientists more. However going on protest matches would probably alienate the public, and making movies leaves you open to accusations of being in it for the money, so profits should go to charity.
-
michael sweet at 03:50 AM on 28 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ritchieb1234,
Sorry about the rant concerning safety. Obviously I have strong feelings about safety.In this article James Conca says:
"There is no, and never will be, a Fukushima Death Toll. No one received enough radiation to change the background cancer rates that normally exist in Japan."
My citation stated (Beyea) in the abstract:
"The purpose of their article [Hoeve and Jacobson) was to evaluate the contention that the accident would have no health effects."
Hoeve and Jacobson reported 600 deaths in the evacuation plus 1000 (center of range) from Beyea.
Do you agree with Conca that there is no and never will be a death toll from Fukushima or is the estimate of Beyea closer to the true, worldwide death toll?
“ We need to ask the more general question: did anybody die because of Fukushima? Yes they did. Why? The Japanese government introduced a forced evacuation of thousands of people living up to a couple of dozen kilometres from the power station. The stress of moving to collection areas induced heart attacks and other medical problems in many people. So people died because of Fukushima hysteria not because of Fukushima radiation.”
The Breakthrough Institute and Conca say:
“ Instead of requiring people to leave, it could make more sense to give them the information they need on radiation exposures and likely health risks, and let them make their own decisions.”
And “despite the fact that the radiological impacts of Fukushima will have effectively zero impact on human health.”
And "is the Fukushima exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?"
"In my opinion yes it has," radiation expert Dr. Geraldine Thomas ibid"Except for a relatively small region around the reactors, the risk of evacuees moving back to their homes are the same as driving a car"
Do you agree with Conca and the Breakthrough Institute that the safety officers who ordered the evacuation of Fukushima are responsible for all the deaths or is the Nuclear Industry responsible?
Would you clear the area around Fukushima for people to return and allow farmed products to be sold in Tokyo without regard to radioactive contamination?
Would you dump all the tritium they have stored in the ocean and say there is no pollution since it is diluted so much?
-
richieb1234 at 22:09 PM on 27 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I am trying to find a scientific basis for the logarithmic model of the impact of CO2 on global temperature. What I found instead was this seemingly credible article from UC Santa Cruz and University of Colorado Environmental Studies Institute, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320123470_The_Relationship_
between_Atmospheric_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_and_Global_
Temperature_for_the_Last_425_Million_Years. , which calls into question the cause-effect relationship between CO2 and global temperature, and concludes that "limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity." If this conclusion is correct, much of what is being done today about climate change may br fruitless.
Can someone recommend a good article that scientifically establishes the cause-effect relationship and justifies the logarithmic model?
Thanks.
-
michael sweet at 13:12 PM on 27 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ritchieb1234,
I think you will be surprised by what you find if you read the All Power plans by 2050 using renewable energy. Read a couple quickly just to get the idea.
Jacobson 2018 describes in detail how many wind turbines, solar panels and what storage is needed to generate All Power (the entire economy, electricity, transportation, industry, farming etc, not just electricity) for the world. It has previously been shown that regional grids (like all North America) is cheaper than individual grids for each country. Jacobson has 20 regions for the world. Jacobson has no bioenergy or electrofuels, he dislikes the pollution from burning. In spite of this handicap, he generates all power for the world at a reasonable cost. His paper will give you an idea of how to achieve the hardest target using only renewable (mostly solar and wind).
Connolly 2016 Smart Energy Europe Connelly generates all power for Europe. He describes the steps to follow to achieve 100% renewable All Power. Step 1 is close all nuclear plants. Connelly uses electrofuel methane for storage and peak power. Cost is reasonable.
Aghahosseai et al 2019 Optomizes a grid for all power in North and South America. He cites at least 21 All Power references. He uses no nuclear. He does not describe generating units like Jaobson, he refers to a previous paper that showed renewable energy can generate all power needed.
Current energy researchers describe continental grids powered by renewable energy. They have no problems with low energy density. They use technology that exists today. As costs cotinue to decline their costs have to be revised downward. They have shown that all the materials exist to build their generators.
-
sidd at 07:07 AM on 27 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Re: new nukes are better
1) Stipulated for the moment that the technology is superior. But in light of the abysmal track record shown in the Bloomberg article and Jaczko's skepticism together with huge cost overruns on existing new construction, why should we trust the industry to build them safely or within budget ?
2) Name a bank or a utility willing to finance a new nuke in the USA absent taxpayer guarantees or Price- Anderson. What is the guarantee that cost of build and cleanup is not gonna come out of my hide ?
3)What is the need for nuclear given
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054 , Journal of Power Sources, Budischak et al. 2012 “99.9% of hours of load can be met by renewables with only 9-72 h of storage."
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2921 , MacDonald et al. Nature Climate Change 2016
“Our results show that when using future anticipated costs for wind and solar, carbon dioxide emissions from the US electricity sector can be reduced by up to 80% relative to 1990 levels, without an increase in the levelized cost of electricity. The reductions are possible with current technologies and without electrical storage.”
See discussion at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-3/#comment-658616 et seq.
sidd
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link button on the tool editor.
-
richieb1234 at 23:58 PM on 26 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
It has been a pleasure to correspond with you. I think there are many things we agree on; most importantly that we all need to VOTE CLIMATE.
On the subject of nuclear energy, we will probably continue to disagree on some important issues. That's ok. My bottom lines are: new nuclear is far better than old nuclear; the problems raised by Abbott can all be addressed if nuclear is to be of use; solar and wind do not have the energy density to solve climate change by themselves; and we need to use every tool at our disposal. But I respect your viewpoint.
I am going back to the question that originally got me onto this site; namely the scientific basis for climate predictions.
Good luck to you. Best regards.
-
michael sweet at 22:31 PM on 26 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Riecieb11234,
I recognize that you are an expert at nuclear safety. I do not like to debate safety because no-one ever changes their minds so it is a waste of time. Barry has started citing James Conca who is a lying nuclear shill. I will state my position.
I have seen the data you describe against the Linear-no-threshold model. While your position that LNT overestimates deaths can be strongly defended, I think that claiming that the radiation released at Fukushima willl cause no damage to anyone, as widely claimed by James Conca and the Breakthrough Institute, is transparently false. Lack of accuracy of LNT does not mean no damage is caused. The radiation will do some damage. The claim that no-one was or will be harmed is false and shows that the nuclear industry does not care how many people they kill.
The claim of 1000 deaths is more accurate than Conca's claim of zero.
I have seen reports recently (sorry no cite) that the combination of many small exposures to different materials, each too small to have a measurable effect, can have a large affect on health. This claim makes sense to me. Why add more radioactivity to the pile?
In 1975 I was a nuclear supporter and thought the plants were engineered to be safe. After the Three Mile Island disaster I began to question the safety culture of Nuclear plants. I realized the plants are extraordinarily complex and operate with a small safety margin. The Chernobyl disaster enforced those questions. We are talkiig world power, don't limit to the USA.
The nuclear industry claims they design to 1in 10,000 year events. The actual tsunami danger in Fukushima was:
"Three tsunami deposits have been identified within the Holocene sequence of the plain, all formed within the last 3,000 years, suggesting an 800 to 1,100 year recurrence interval for large tsunamigenic earthquakes. In 2001 it was reckoned that there was a high likelihood of a large tsunami hitting the Sendai plain as more than 1,100 years had then elapsed.[71] In 2007, the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude of Mw 8.1–8.3 was estimated as 99% within the following 30 years"
Where is the safety culture? This data was ignored to make more money.
When Conca says nuclear waste is no problem, no-one was killed at Fukushima and massive releases of radiation do not hurt anyone I think the nuclear industry executives are a pack of liars (that does not apply to safety professionals).
Sidds article says 90% of US nuclear plants are underdesigned for flooding by their own reckoning!! What would an independant study find!! And the NRC overrules safety experts (like you) and says do nothing. Tell me again why NuScale is so safe when the IRSN says they see no benefit.
Every atomic armed nation in the world has civilian power plants. More nuclear in the world will lead to more bombs. Iran is a perfect example.
The nuclear industry has a long, poor record on safety.
I always argue that nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build to contribute to a solution to Global Warming. Abbott makes the case that there are many technical reasons why nuclear cannot be widely adopted. I would like to continue the discussion on those arguments.
Moderator Response:[PS] Over the top.
-
Ddahl44 at 21:55 PM on 26 June 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
From Schmidt:
[17] If the absorbers are grouped in a simple manner, i.e., water vapor, clouds, CO2 and all other factors, and some simplifying assumptions made, it is relatively straightfor- ward to infer the overlaps and estimate the net attribution of the total greenhouse effect to the individual constituents. Following KT97, given an overlap between two absorbers, an obvious allocation is to split the difference, i.e., if 5% of the net LW radiation could be absorbed either by water vapor or CO2, then each is allocated 2.5%.Moderator Response:But following KT97, that is splitting the overlap at the probability level. Concentrations still matter.
-
Ataluma at 20:23 PM on 26 June 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
MA Rodger@490, thanks for the info re Bill McGuire. Cheers
-
plincoln24 at 15:27 PM on 26 June 2019The Trump EPA strategy to undo Clean Power Plan
jedaly: Perhaps you missed the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the above article. The EPA determined that CO2 poses a danger to the public and should therefore be regulated as a pollutant. Whether we label CO2 as a pollutant or not, knowing that it is a danger to the public is enough in my mind to warrant its regulation.
-
barry17781 at 10:38 AM on 26 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
richie,
you quote suicide and stress as a death from the nuclear incedent, but surely these should be attributed to the alarmist who spread these roumours that nuclear energy is dangerous. As we can see from the statistics it is far safer than wind energy.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Doug Bostrom at 09:57 AM on 26 June 2019New Research for week #25, 2019
Thanks for the suggestion, Synapsid.
As the current perpetrator of Research News I've been thinking hard about this, flipping and flopping.
In days gone by I was in the broadcasting business, sucked in from engineering and onward into management, unavoidably becoming involved with music programming schedules thereby. In music there was an instinct to divide music presentation into genres, which has its ups and downs. The "up" is that listeners with a particular interest could spend an hour per week hearing their favorite style. The downside was that those listeners never heard anything else because we made it so easy for them to avoid anything new, thereby helping them miss much.
In a way the situation in broadcasting and choices there are redolent of the modern condition of the internet, where the decapitation of the editorial class has ended up inadvertently compartmentalizing thoughts and beliefs into what seems to be growing mutual intolerance and ignorance. Bumping into things can be a feature and not a bug.
As with music such as AA, jazz etc. there are scientific players working with different instruments, covering different beats but exploring realms sharing commonality. Meanwhile our fault as a species qualified for management of the planet seems significantly to lie in failing to see the big picture.
The long way of saying: the current disorder is an engineering choice. :-)
But I'm still thinking about it; engineering is never finished. As it stands, articles are being presented in their default order as found in journal feeds so they are categorized at least by what is accepted by particular publishers and their respective journal families. It should be possible to make it work acceptably for specialists and generalists; I'll bend my mind to that.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
-
Synapsid at 08:11 AM on 26 June 2019New Research for week #25, 2019
I applaud your continuing this column. I'd suggest for a start retaining Ari's subheadings. They make scanning the posts a good deal more productive, preventing the mind's snapping back and forth among a large number of fields of research.
-
richieb1234 at 08:10 AM on 26 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
""the mid-range estimate for the number of future mortalities is probably closer to 1000" from radiation released in the accident."
The estimates of future mortalities stated in the article you cite, and those by Ten Hoeve and Jacobson which are discussed in the cited article, are based on the assumption that deaths from cancer will result if large numbers of people are exposed to de minimus amounts of radiation. This is the so-called Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation health effects. This model is questionable at best; and realistically not credible. It has greatly overestimated cancers from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. The WHO and other credible organizations have warned against making estimates based on this model. It appears that the dominant health effects from Fukushima were the deaths as a result of the evacuation, which you rightly state should be counted as nuclear deaths. These include suicides due to the stress and other factors.
Best regards
-
scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 26 June 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
" But surely the most important greenhouse molecules must be those closer to the earth’s surface, where weather is created and the heat is felt."
GHG at all levels, capture radiation and cause re-radiation downward. Upper level GHG are very important.
"Schmidt splits the effect of CO2 and H20 for their shared wavelengths 50/50." No he doesnt. See table 1.
-
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 26 June 2019Models are unreliable
Weaknesses with models is hardly news - ask any modeller. what you are looking at is the processes by which models get better. Numerous studies have shown that basically models suck at regional-level prediction for reasons including difficulties with ocean circulation. They are also hopeless at decadal-level prediction. If the models were better, we would have such a wide range on ECS estimates.
However the models have plenty of skill at many other important variables and are by far the best tools we have for predicting future climate (ie 30-year averages).
-
DinkDink at 05:20 AM on 26 June 2019Models are unreliable
Just some food for thought... These published studies raise plenty of questions about the validity of the the models being used and the accuracy of the historical data being inserted into them.
The role of historical forcings in simulating the observed Atlantic multidecadal oscillation
Moderator Response:[DB] Please be specific and provide a rationale for each of the studies you linked to and why you feel that they support your claims.
-
michael sweet at 03:34 AM on 26 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Eclectic,
I thought it was interesting that utility scale solar, which is most of the solar industry, was left off the list from James Conca. He also does not count all the people killed in the evacuation of Fukushima as killed by nuclear.
If you don't count the people you kill, you can get any result you want. From people who care about how many people die: Accounting for long-term doses in “worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident” "the mid-range estimate for the number of future mortalities is probably closer to 1000" from radiation released in the accident. James Conca says none.
James Conca never addresses the fact that nuclear power has priced itself out of the market.
-
David Kirtley at 03:29 AM on 26 June 2019New Research for week #25, 2019
I always vote for clicking leading to a separate tab/window.
-
Ddahl44 at 00:52 AM on 26 June 2019The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
scaddenp,
I read the article, thanks. From what I understand of it, eclectic, water and CO2 are in competition because they share some wavelengths of absorption. What I find troubling is Schmidt splits the effect of CO2 and H20 for their shared wavelengths 50/50. How can this be if there are 70x as many water molecules as CO2? I realize, too, that H20 vapor does not hang out in the upper levels of the atmosphere. But surely the most important greenhouse molecules must be those closer to the earth’s surface, where weather is created and the heat is felt. The “hot” CO2 molecules ahigh are less abundant at lower pressures and have less to bounce into, right? JohnSeers, I realize there is a water cycle just as there is a CO2 cycle. But at any one time, despite evaporation, rain, and ocean CO2 absorption, there are still 70x as many water molecules as CO2. Before we leave the moon, I just saw a Business Insider article that linked higher temperatures on the moon with astronauts stirring up dust on their brief visits. So man is causing lunar warming?! (would link it but couldn’t). Thanks all.
-
jedaly at 00:19 AM on 26 June 2019The Trump EPA strategy to undo Clean Power Plan
It seems even more muttled than nijelj suggests.
I'm a phycisist, and the first question I have in reaction to this article, is this: How can CO2 be confused with air polution? This false premis seems to invalidate the entire rest of the discussion.
Moderator Response:[TD] Please read the post before commenting.
-
Eclectic at 23:08 PM on 25 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Thank you for those (up-thread) death figures, Barry.
(Anecdote) A relative of mine worked for many years in tunnel construction, in various countries. He said the death rate always averaged out to "a man a mile" (for well-regulated worksites). These are deaths closely connected with the tunnel itself (not for transport crashes off-site).
I guess it's a matter of the aim (and the cost/benefits), as to what you consider "acceptable". And what we are accustomed to consider acceptable. Compare for instance the death rate (crashes) for motor vehicle transport ~ about 1.3 million deaths annually, worldwide. Not to mention the larger rate of ruined lives from permanent disability and consequent poverty.
btw, I must say the 440 figure (worldwide annual deaths from "solar rooftop" does sound rather low, in view of the dangers of working on roofs . . . I should imagine (without substantiation) that a similar or greater figure would come from elderly householders up ladders, simply cleaning leaves out of their roof-gutters.
All-in-all, Barry, the figures you quote should probably bear a greater degree of fine analysis, to separate the deaths (and severe disabilities) resulting directly & inherently from the energy production . . . away from those deaths which are more truly at arm's length (i.e. "distantly incidental").
Costs, benefits, and risks.
As you are well aware, there is always a groundswell of concern about risks with "nuclear". Risks of long-term pollution (soil and groundwater), and risks of terrorist actions (small . . . or horrifically large). As one says about the stockmarket ~ past performance is no guide to future events.
Then there are the long-term risks of mass-migration of refugees fleeing the tropical regions where more frequent & intense heat waves make life unlivable for part of each year, as global temperatures rise. Droughts, floods, urban water shortages. Social and political "unrest" (a bland euphemism indeed).
How do we stack those uncertain risks, up against the relatively low risks of nuclear power generation? But as has been much discussed previously ~ can a nuclear power solution be carried out quickly, in a timely manner to forestall those geo-political risks? . . . and without the enormous opportunity cost, for money/resources diverted from more immediate renewables usage?
Prev 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Next
